Gyrfalcon:Let Turkey take care of Syria. They can do it handily, plus they have a vested interest in the region we don't have.

It might be better if a Middle Eastern nation was taken down by one of its neighbors instead of the US, you know?

Turkey can't take care of Syria on its own. Yes, they have lots of ground forces and a decent air force. but they lack significant assets. They aren't designed to operate alone in a campaign of any significance. Beating up on Kurdish rebels isn't the same as attacking another modern nation. They don't have to alone given they are part of NATO and can draw the US, UK, France, and all the rest who want to join.

For all those thinking this is just another Libya situation, it isn't. Syria has a larger military with better equipment. There is a larger population spread over a larger area. Syria has chemical weapons which may be utilized given the leadership has little to lose given the attorcities and vengence that will be sought by those he is oppressing. Yes, a large enough force could conduct a campaign, but it would be much more difficult and involve casualties even if WMDs were not used by Syria.

Daedalus27:Gyrfalcon: Let Turkey take care of Syria. They can do it handily, plus they have a vested interest in the region we don't have.

It might be better if a Middle Eastern nation was taken down by one of its neighbors instead of the US, you know?

Turkey can't take care of Syria on its own. Yes, they have lots of ground forces and a decent air force. but they lack significant assets. They aren't designed to operate alone in a campaign of any significance. Beating up on Kurdish rebels isn't the same as attacking another modern nation. They don't have to alone given they are part of NATO and can draw the US, UK, France, and all the rest who want to join.

For all those thinking this is just another Libya situation, it isn't. Syria has a larger military with better equipment. There is a larger population spread over a larger area. Syria has chemical weapons which may be utilized given the leadership has little to lose given the attorcities and vengence that will be sought by those he is oppressing. Yes, a large enough force could conduct a campaign, but it would be much more difficult and involve casualties even if WMDs were not used by Syria.

Attorcities and vengence aside, I say the US invades. There's not a lot going on right now.

And ammo. Don't forget that ammo is heavy. If you are carrying the gun, you (and your a-gunner, and the rest of your squad) are also carrying many, many rounds.

The MG42 was the mechanical predecessor of the US M60, but one of the things that we did tone down was the cyclic rate of fire. In an infantry environment, ridiculously high rates of fire are not a good idea.

Uh no we won't because we have strategic military bases in Turkey. If we want to keep them we will help. Which is the whole issue with Syria in the first place and Russia. It's never just "that" simple ever.

rhiannon:Daedalus27: Gyrfalcon: Let Turkey take care of Syria. They can do it handily, plus they have a vested interest in the region we don't have.

It might be better if a Middle Eastern nation was taken down by one of its neighbors instead of the US, you know?

Turkey can't take care of Syria on its own. Yes, they have lots of ground forces and a decent air force. but they lack significant assets. They aren't designed to operate alone in a campaign of any significance. Beating up on Kurdish rebels isn't the same as attacking another modern nation. They don't have to alone given they are part of NATO and can draw the US, UK, France, and all the rest who want to join.

For all those thinking this is just another Libya situation, it isn't. Syria has a larger military with better equipment. There is a larger population spread over a larger area. Syria has chemical weapons which may be utilized given the leadership has little to lose given the attorcities and vengence that will be sought by those he is oppressing. Yes, a large enough force could conduct a campaign, but it would be much more difficult and involve casualties even if WMDs were not used by Syria.

Attorcities and vengence aside, I say the US invades. There's not a lot going on right now.

Can we get everyone out of Afghanistan first? Sun Tzu advised against protracted wars and all that.

Uh no we won't because we have strategic military bases in Turkey. If we want to keep them we will help. Which is the whole issue with Syria in the first place and Russia. It's never just "that" simple ever.

With the closing of Field Station Sinop, I think we've just got Incirlik AFB left in Turkey, plus a VLF transmitter facility for submarine communications.

Gyrfalcon:rhiannon: Daedalus27: Gyrfalcon: Let Turkey take care of Syria. They can do it handily, plus they have a vested interest in the region we don't have.

It might be better if a Middle Eastern nation was taken down by one of its neighbors instead of the US, you know?

Turkey can't take care of Syria on its own. Yes, they have lots of ground forces and a decent air force. but they lack significant assets. They aren't designed to operate alone in a campaign of any significance. Beating up on Kurdish rebels isn't the same as attacking another modern nation. They don't have to alone given they are part of NATO and can draw the US, UK, France, and all the rest who want to join.

For all those thinking this is just another Libya situation, it isn't. Syria has a larger military with better equipment. There is a larger population spread over a larger area. Syria has chemical weapons which may be utilized given the leadership has little to lose given the attorcities and vengence that will be sought by those he is oppressing. Yes, a large enough force could conduct a campaign, but it would be much more difficult and involve casualties even if WMDs were not used by Syria.

Attorcities and vengence aside, I say the US invades. There's not a lot going on right now.

Can we get everyone out of Afghanistan first? Sun Tzu advised against protracted wars and all that.

Well, no, it's a great place to set up camp. Sorta like a Mars colony, only more dangerous.

Daedalus27:Gyrfalcon: Let Turkey take care of Syria. They can do it handily, plus they have a vested interest in the region we don't have.

It might be better if a Middle Eastern nation was taken down by one of its neighbors instead of the US, you know?

Turkey can't take care of Syria on its own. Yes, they have lots of ground forces and a decent air force. but they lack significant assets. They aren't designed to operate alone in a campaign of any significance. Beating up on Kurdish rebels isn't the same as attacking another modern nation. They don't have to alone given they are part of NATO and can draw the US, UK, France, and all the rest who want to join.

For all those thinking this is just another Libya situation, it isn't. Syria has a larger military with better equipment. There is a larger population spread over a larger area. Syria has chemical weapons which may be utilized given the leadership has little to lose given the attorcities and vengence that will be sought by those he is oppressing. Yes, a large enough force could conduct a campaign, but it would be much more difficult and involve casualties even if WMDs were not used by Syria.

Huh? The Turkish Air Force has more 4th generation fighters than Syria (like 200 to 60) and the Turkish Army has about 250,000 more active duty soldiers than Syria.